blockchain_events_create

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the POST-to-callbackUrl delivery model, subscription persistence, pre-API rejection of invalid blockchain/eventType combinations, the two-step preview-then-confirm flow with a one-time token, and a 30-credit cost with the caveat that actual credits come from response headers. It omits authentication requirements and does not describe the preview/token response shape beyond the token itself.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well front-loaded: purpose, delivery behavior, and persistence come first, then a scannable bullet list of event types, then confirmations and cost. The event-type bullets are the valuable payload; the credits disclaimer paragraph is boilerplate that partially duplicates the cost line above it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: what triggers a callback, which inputs are conditionally required, the delayed-confirmation execution model, and cost. It would be complete with a brief note on auth requirements and on what the preview/confirmation responses contain, but nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the per-event-type firing semantics (unconfirmed vs. confirmed vs. each-confirmation vs. block-mined) and the rule that all types except block-mined need an address. Cross-parameter constraints such as confirmationsCount being required for '-each-confirmation' and receiveCallbackOn applying only to certain types are also stated in the schema descriptions, so part of this is duplication rather than added value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a webhook subscription for on-chain events') and enumerates exactly which event types can be subscribed to, so the agent knows precisely what the tool produces. It never names or contrasts with the sibling blockchain_events_manage, so sibling differentiation is left implicit rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear conditions: this is for creating subscriptions, subscriptions persist until deleted (implying the manage sibling handles lifecycle), all event types except block-mined require an address, and create actions require confirmation. It does not explicitly say when to call this versus blockchain_events_manage, and no exclusions for duplicate subscriptions are framed as usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.